TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 639
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....appellants M/s P.C. Construction, Lucknow and M/s Raj and Co., Lucknow respectively. Appeals No. ST/659/2009, ST/660/2009 and ST/661/2009 have been filed by the Revenue against the same OIA dated 11/05/2006. Cross Objection ST/11/2010 has been filed by M/s Saraswati Traders with respect to appeal No. ST/661/2009 filed by the Revenue. 2. Shri Kapil Vaish (C.A.), appearing on behalf of the appellant M/s P.C. Construction and M/s Raj & Co., learned C.A. argued that his clients are providing services of Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service (ECIS) to M/s Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited (BSNL) in the form of erection of towers for which certain items are supplied free of charge by BSNL and certain other items are used by the appellants. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s contract'. That BSNL were eligible to Cenvat credit under Cenvat Credit Rules and service tax paid by appellants would have been available as Cenvat credit and intention to evade payment cannot be attributed to the appellants. It was thus his case that extended period and penalty under Section 78 of the Finance Act, 1994 cannot be invoked. That due to interpretational dispute and harbouring a bonafide opinion that appellant activity is not taxable, there was a reasonable cause for which benefit of Section 80 of the Finance Act, 1994 will be available. He relies upon the case law of Jai Jawan Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. vs. CST, New Delhi reported in 2015 (37) S.T.R. 509 (Tri. - Del.). It was also argued by the learned CA that benefit of c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....i Traders it is observed that more or less same arguments taken by other appellants, are taken in the 'cross objection'. Adjournment request of the respondent in appeal No. ST/661/2009 is rejected and their matter is also taken up for disposed alongwith other appeals. 4. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 5. Main issue involved in all these appeals is as to what should be the classification of the activities undertaken by the appellants, whether the same should be considered Erection, Commissioning or Installation Service (ECIS) or as works contract service. Period of dispute in all these appeals is 1/5/2006 to 17/3/2008. Works contract service came into existence w.e.f. 01/6/2007 and was carved out of earlier services....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....applicable as his clients were under the bonafide belief that before 01/6/2007 no service tax on 'works contract' activities was payable as the Sale/Trade Tax authorities has taken his client's activities as works contract. Looking to the factual matrix of the present proceedings it is observed that there could be a bonafide belief on the part of the appellant that their activities do not attract service tax before 01/6/2007. Service tax if any paid by the appellant under ECIS could have been admissible as Cenvat credit to BSNL. It is also not the case of the Revenue that service tax payable was collected by the appellants from BSNL and not paid to the Department. Accordingly, it is held that extended period is not invokable in ....